 |
| photo from http://bmag.com.au/things-to-do-in-brisbane/latest/2015/05/06/experience-the-philippines-at-the-barrio-fiesta/ |
Kung mas marami kang pakinabang sa
Amerika at galit ka sa Tsina, dapat ay anti-Duterte ka. At kung may galit ka
naman sa Amerika, for reasons as small as having been served water instead of a
lauriat (lao diat) merienda during a visit to an American office, or having been denied a tourist visa once, ay dapat pro-Duterte at pro-China ka na. Ito
ang tanong ko: pag anti-America ka ba, ibig sabihin nationalist ka na? At ganun
din pag anti-China ka? Baka kailangan nating lahat bumalik sa kolehiyo para mapag-aralan
muli ang buong kahulugan ng mga salita, dahil may mga pangyayari sa mga nakalipas
na buwan (kung di man sa nakalipas na mga taon) kung saan tila napakadali lang sa ating mga
pulitiko (o aktibista man) ang mag-preach o mag-claim ng posisyon ng nationalism at independence, ipse dixit—ito’y
habang may paghinala sa kanila (o sa mga grupo nila) bilang mga resipyente ng pondo
galing sa kung anu-anong banyagang bangko, mga kompanya, o mga indibidwal na di-malayong may kani-kanyang interes na maaaring taliwas sa nasyonalismo o independensiya
na isinusulong ng mga talumpati ng mga pulitiko o aktibistang ito.
Here’s my next question: nationalism, according to what concept of nationhood? Or according to whose perspective on the idea of ideal nationhood? Now, I’ll grant that patriotism is what binds us together as citizens of our country, and that—as a friend of mine quipped—this patriotism can derive from different orientations, religious affiliations, political ideologies, ages, economic brackets, and so on. Indeed, we can always choose to focus on the power of the positive fact concerning this common ground’s goal instead of on the doldrums of a non-goal with our often-ready list of differences. For, after all, it's this love of country—albeit a country molded by our conquistadors, the Spaniards—that has retained our wholeness and coagulation as tribes or linguistic groups, and we’ve remained relatively undivided for decades since the fall of the Spaniards and our independence from the Commonwealth. True, also, anyone who has attempted to strike at our motherland in order to subtract from it, e.g. the long Islamist separatist insurrection in Mindanao or the battles in the North before the establishment of the Cordillera Autonomous Region, would always be countered by the center with the ample defense of unity against these many efforts at wedge-building.
But here’s the problem: we've been ruled by neocolonial lumpenbourgeois interests since the beginning of our republic/s, and these interests have been imposing their neocolonial lumpenbourgeois formulas on the nation for the same length of time, all in the name of patriotism and nationalism! Yes, to the point that the connect between these impositions and the nationalist ideals these lumpenbourgeois factions claimed would be questioned many a time by many a cynic from both the academia and not. In short, it’s not the lack or absence of patriotism and/or nationalism that’s the issue but who the people are who have had a handle on these ideals and used the very same for intents many would regard as other than what nationalist ideals proclaim.
Here’s my next question: nationalism, according to what concept of nationhood? Or according to whose perspective on the idea of ideal nationhood? Now, I’ll grant that patriotism is what binds us together as citizens of our country, and that—as a friend of mine quipped—this patriotism can derive from different orientations, religious affiliations, political ideologies, ages, economic brackets, and so on. Indeed, we can always choose to focus on the power of the positive fact concerning this common ground’s goal instead of on the doldrums of a non-goal with our often-ready list of differences. For, after all, it's this love of country—albeit a country molded by our conquistadors, the Spaniards—that has retained our wholeness and coagulation as tribes or linguistic groups, and we’ve remained relatively undivided for decades since the fall of the Spaniards and our independence from the Commonwealth. True, also, anyone who has attempted to strike at our motherland in order to subtract from it, e.g. the long Islamist separatist insurrection in Mindanao or the battles in the North before the establishment of the Cordillera Autonomous Region, would always be countered by the center with the ample defense of unity against these many efforts at wedge-building.
But here’s the problem: we've been ruled by neocolonial lumpenbourgeois interests since the beginning of our republic/s, and these interests have been imposing their neocolonial lumpenbourgeois formulas on the nation for the same length of time, all in the name of patriotism and nationalism! Yes, to the point that the connect between these impositions and the nationalist ideals these lumpenbourgeois factions claimed would be questioned many a time by many a cynic from both the academia and not. In short, it’s not the lack or absence of patriotism and/or nationalism that’s the issue but who the people are who have had a handle on these ideals and used the very same for intents many would regard as other than what nationalist ideals proclaim.
And as for love, that great intangible
almost guaranteeing the ultimate sacrifice for its service, it has been used in
the same breath that some leaders of France bandied it for a rationale to side with
Hitler. And it is in this sense of a problematic regarding the concept of love that
I would here unabashedly assert that perhaps our current President, Rodrigo
Duterte, may be allowing an emotional love for Freddie Aguilar’s country
music to influence his pragmatic love of country, by which I mean mistaking self-centered love
(controlling love from an emotional utopia) for selfless love (love of a democratic nation). The first kind of love (emotional
and self-centered) may be sincere and real in a lumpenbourgeois leader, but is
it the kind of love the majority really want (or need) or are truly empathetic towards from their democratic voice, post-election?
MY friend
the banker and gallerist Boy David says: “Consistency requires you to be as
ignorant today as you were a year ago. The challenge is that it is harder to be
subtle than strident.”
And that’s the crux of our problem today as receivers of a media image,
isn’t it? Consistency, as a requisite of the art of media image-making
servicing the star system-leaning presidential form of politics that we have, would
find the need to be subtle about the devil in the details (that would often require
analysts to appear on talk shows) waylaid by our political culture as a whole in
a manner that would not be done in a parliamentary system’s culture of constant
debate. A shallow consistency of and for a media image becomes the science as
well as the subject of political scientism, precisely what we see stretched to
its utmost level of ludicrousness on Fox News and CNN regarding the US’s own stars
in their presidential system. Was his smile the right kind of smile for the
right kind of audience? What did his/her offensive statement achieve, poll-wise? Woe to the devil in the details as they continue to dress up as PR and marketing angels upon public ignorance.
And what details are we talking about?
Well, here’s a sample of the sort of Facebook discussion that I would prefer
(not that this sample is as “deep” as an esoteric, academic thread, which we do not need to be):
WHILE on the issue of the division in our
society/nation, our friend the Perth-based painter A- referred us to a 1970s root
division in the study of Philippine history: “Kuyang, nahati sa dalawa ang mga
Filipino noon—yung mga nagbasa ng aklat ni Teodoro Agoncillo, at yung mga
nagbasa naman ng kay Gregorio Zaide. Tila ang problema ay mas marami ang
nakabasa nung kay Zaide. :-p”
“You zaid it well, kuyang Art. :),” I replied. “Ang problema, ang mga nagbasa kay Agoncillo ay nag-aala-pro-American-Zaide na rin pagdating sa China. Nagiging pro-China Zaides. :v”
“You zaid it well, kuyang Art. :),” I replied. “Ang problema, ang mga nagbasa kay Agoncillo ay nag-aala-pro-American-Zaide na rin pagdating sa China. Nagiging pro-China Zaides. :v”
“Lol... :-p,” wrote Kuyang Art.
“At pa’no naman ang mga nagsunog ng kilay
kay Renato Constantino at sa mga namulat at namumulat pa sa patuloy na nagbabagong
anyo ng kasaysayan ng Pilipinas, halimbawa sa pamamagitan ng mga akda o lektura nina
Ambeth R. Ocampo, Ka Inggo (Domingo C. de Guzman), Xiao Chua, atbp.?” asked our
friend R-. At maganda na nabanggit sila ng ating kaibigan, dahil interesado
akong malaman kung ano nga ang masasabi ng mga historyador na ito tungkol sa
tunggalian na nangyayari ngayon sa pagitan ng TeamAmerika of anti-‘Dutertards’
at ng all-but-TeamChina apologists ng Duterte-ismo.
Totoo, marami tayong lalong mauunawaan tungkol
sa ugat ng katiwalian dito sa ating bansa kung mababasa natin ang aklat na The Evil That Men Do (a Philippine history
book) ni Ka Inggo. At malinaw din sa mga pahayag ni de Guzman na pro-Duterte
siya, ayon sa ating kaibigan. Pero pro-Tsina rin nga ba? Marahil kaugnay lang sa
tipong pang-malayang patakarang panlabas, sabi ni R-.
Ngunit, kung usapang geo-realpolitik na, kalayaan
how? By joining them when you can't beat them? Hmm. If so, I wonder why those
who would be espousing this sort of logic towards China weren’t so enthusiastic
in applying the same logic towards the statehood-for-the-Philippines-in-the-US-federal-union
movement’s cause? Is it because China is socialist and worth “joining” our
islands to, and the US is not?
If so, for socialism’s sake, it begs the corollary question regarding how socialist China is. Is one-party communist rule, with its own communist party elite of businessmen and new capitalists, socialist? How? How (plutocratically) not? Is the sort of socialism in some parts of the EU despicable or lame to Chinese communist partisan capitalism? Would the sort of socialism espoused by the left of the US Democratic Party be regarded by it as equally lame? What would be their comment on Trotskyist takes against the Communist bureaucracy? Or on anarchist communist takes against this same statist bureaucracy?
If so, for socialism’s sake, it begs the corollary question regarding how socialist China is. Is one-party communist rule, with its own communist party elite of businessmen and new capitalists, socialist? How? How (plutocratically) not? Is the sort of socialism in some parts of the EU despicable or lame to Chinese communist partisan capitalism? Would the sort of socialism espoused by the left of the US Democratic Party be regarded by it as equally lame? What would be their comment on Trotskyist takes against the Communist bureaucracy? Or on anarchist communist takes against this same statist bureaucracy?
Sana ay kalayaan talaga sa puntong walang
pagdidikta o pagdodomina ng mas malakas, was the articulation of our friend R- of
an oft-repeated expression of hopefulness among those sympathetic to or hopeful
for the President’s veering the Philippines away from the West towards a
closer-to-China foreign policy. But ‛sana’ is a too-hopeful prayer-cum-gamble
hovering above the current Duterte excitement over a hoped-for Philippine future, wouldn’t you agree? Our friend Wilfredo Gallinero’s comment on another post of mine treats of
concrete examples for this very topic, and it doesn’t beat around the bush. He
wrote: “why don’t we ask some of the former satellites of Russia why they broke
away from the USSR (and then aligned themselves with the rest of Europe away from Russia)? Or why Tibet, Hong Kong, Vietnam, and Taiwan, do not like
mainland China that much. Why not ask millions of Chinese émigrés scattered
around the globe why they ran away from their homeland (and would still be wary
of going back)? Why not ask millions of later Chinese and Russian immigrants to
the United States the reason why they chose to live there instead of in China
or Russia? Why not ask the Venezuelans what they got from switching sides? Why
not ask the Cubans if they think they deserve a 2016 Ford Everest instead of a
vintage Chevy Cadillac?”
There you go. So, it’s not Duterte, Our
Deliverer, then, is it, Mr. Gallinero? Appears more like Duterte, China’s Deliverer. Tama ba ako? And so, who,
then, is fit, or should we trust, to deliver for us a truly independent foreign
policy, if it is possible?—asked our friend R-. This is definitely a question worth delving into in
order to look the devil-in-the-details in the eye. Without beating around the
bush, let me go straight to my abstract, which goes thus:
An independent foreign policy is policy
reached by choice of principle, not by the dictate of, say, one's campaign or regime foreign-bank
donors, for example. And while the rumor that the AIIB donated a sum to Duterte’s campaign
may be a wicked lie, it is also a fact that there was instant communication between the AIIB and the Duterte transition finance team after the President’s
win. (Remember: while it was indeed the Aquino government that started mulling the possibility of the Philippines' joining the AIIB, President Aquino himself would later issue a caveat concerning being quick to bite the temptation, even though he would later announce in December 2015 that we shall be joining the Bank).
We are not saying that Duterte is selling us to the Chinese quick, the way the Makapilis sold some of our grandfathers and grandmothers to the Japs during World War II. But remember that the bulk of the Makapilis, who were promised lands through land reform or peace or good times in Japan, did not become Makapilis by choice of sober principle, but either from duress or from sheer hatred of their neighbors or present landlords. Duterte has been expressing a personal anger towards Americans as a nation of loud people, which could be blamed for the impression that his anti-American friendliness towards China is not entirely derived from a sober principle.
We are not saying that Duterte is selling us to the Chinese quick, the way the Makapilis sold some of our grandfathers and grandmothers to the Japs during World War II. But remember that the bulk of the Makapilis, who were promised lands through land reform or peace or good times in Japan, did not become Makapilis by choice of sober principle, but either from duress or from sheer hatred of their neighbors or present landlords. Duterte has been expressing a personal anger towards Americans as a nation of loud people, which could be blamed for the impression that his anti-American friendliness towards China is not entirely derived from a sober principle.
Pero, whatever sort of principle is behind
the Duterte plan, ang problema natin, ultimately, is not whom to trust to
deliver us to a zone with an independent foreign policy, but that we have a
presidential system where the president is the dictator who decides for the
destiny of 100,000,000+ individuals outside of his possibly neo-lumpenbourgeois present luxury. One
should wonder why no one is yet calling for a referendum on at least one of
Duterte's humongous decisions.
Ser Boy re-entered this part of the
conversation with this: “Right now, China succeeds in peeling the Philippines
away from the United States; it is whipping a major win in Beijing’s long-term
campaign to weaken U.S. alliances in the region. It will feed fears that the
right mix of intimidation and inducements could influence other partners to
distance themselves from Washington.”
“The pre-election rumor that Duterte was a
candidate funded by the AIIB turning out to be an earth-shattering reality?” I
offered a wicked, gossipy conjecture.
Here, our friend Don Miguel came in with a
re-post of a status post by one named Randy Valiente, who wrote: “Mami-miss ko
yung mga sigaw sa kalsada ng 'Tuta ng Kano'. Baka nga mas cute pakinggan yung
'Chihuahua ng China'. Chos. :P”
Hahaha. :)YES, our thread ended in laughter. But it was not just that ending that made the thread not the kind of exchange you’d read in comment boxes with Duterte loyalists (on one hand) and opposing politicians’ loyalists (on the other) in them. For, given that some of my friends are sympathetic to certain or all Duterte policies, with others not, I believe that they have all been demonstrating amply well the fact that the brain of each member of this Filipino nation of ours can behave or think beyond being a merely neocolonial lumpenbourgeois echo chamber for the preachings of its favorite neocolonial lumpenbourgeois leaders. I think an independent foreign policy can begin with each of our nation’s members’ exercise of its independence from the chains of politician- or party-directed blind loyalism. Otherwise one should have no business waving about the word “independence” when he cannot himself be independent enough to be able to examine or question his own idol-politician’s or idol-party’s suspect use of words. [S / -I]
